Post navigation

Here we go again. Only about 40% of people vote in the midterms, but if you are one of those planning to sit out these elections, I beg you to reconsider.

Here are the propositions on the ballot in California, with a local Palo Alto initiative as well, since I live here.

Early voting may have already started in your county. Check it out here

Also, make sure you are still registered as a voter; the DMV admits to have messed up a number of voter accounts. Check here

Proposition 1: The Housing Programs and Veterans’ Loans Bond
Voting YES supports this measure to authorize $4 billion in general obligation bonds for housing-related programs, loans, grants, and projects for low-income residents, veterans, and farm-workers.
Voting NO opposes this measure.

VOTE YES. Only the government can make a dent in the housing situation in California, since there is no incentive for private agencies to construct low-income or affordable housing. While this proposition does not solve California’s housing woes, it certainly makes a start. It also makes it easy for cities to plan for housing growth better and encourages them to think of their less fortunate citizens.

Voting YES supports authorizing the state to use revenue from Proposition 63 (2004)—a 1 percent tax on income above $1 million for mental health services—on $2 billion in revenue bonds for homelessness prevention housing for persons in need of mental health services.
Voting NO opposes it.

VOTE YES. Anyone who has ever traveled to San Francisco cannot have have avoided encountering the homeless, many of whom are on the streets because of mental illness. This proposition specifically helps those with mental illness. Without stable housing, people with mental illnesses cannot begin to rebuild their lives. It is a win-win for everyone – a humane solution to the issue, and cleaner, safer streets. Also, Prop 63 already collects this money – Prop 2 just helps to allocate it better.

Voting YES supports this measure to authorize $8.877 billion in general obligation bonds for water infrastructure, groundwater supplies and storage, surface water storage and dam repairs, watershed and fisheries improvements, and habitat protection and restoration.
Voting NO opposes this measure.

On the face of it, this is a much needed measure that protects existing watersheds, improves the quality of water and dams like Oroville (Oof, remember that scare?) and puts money towards recycling water and purifying contaminated water. It is supported by environmental organizations like Save the Bay and California Wildlife Foundation.

However, Sierra Club opposes it because the Prop was written without a lost of transparency and benefits wealthy farmers in Central Valley who have depleted our water supply irresponsibly and are going to be bailed out by the government.

(It is important to note that there was a water bond in June 2018 also, but that money went to park and wildlife projects, not initiatives that improved water quality and sources of water.)

I took some time to listen to a Forum debate on this. Listen here. After listening to both sides of the argument, I have to agree that there is some pork for powerful Central Valley agribusiness, but there is a lot of money for good projects too. So I am (with some reluctance) VOTING YES. (Mercury News opposes it.)

VOTE YES: The $1.5 billion state bond measure would provide grants over a 15-year period for construction, expansion, renovation and equipment for California’s children’s hospitals, which include Palo Alto’s Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital and Oakland’s UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital.

Proposition 5: The Property Tax Transfer Initiative

Voting YES supports amending Proposition 13 (1978) to allow home buyers who are age 55 or older or severely disabled to transfer their tax assessments, with a possible adjustment, from their prior home to their new home, no matter (a) the new home’s market value; (b) the new home’s location in the state; or (c) the buyer’s number of moves.
Voting NO opposes amending Proposition 13.

Sometimes all you need to make up your mind on a proposition is to see who put it on the ballot. In this case it is the California Association of Realtors.

California law already allows seniors who sell their homes to transfer their low, Proposition 13 tax base to a new home. That’s been the law for more than 30 years.

There are sensible limits in the existing law. It requires that the new home be of equal or lesser value than the one that was sold, and that the transfer can be taken only once. Those limits help preserve critical public services while also protecting seniors who want to downsize.

Proposition 5 would throw those limits out the window. It would allow the property tax transfer to apply when people 55 and older trade up to a more expensive house — and to take that tax break with them as many times as they wish.

What this essentially means that wealthy home owners (of a certain age) are the ones to benefit. The loss of revenue would severely impact local government agencies and take away money from local services.

This ballot initiative would repeal the gas and diesel tax increases and vehicle fees that were enacted in 2017 and require voter approval for fuel tax and vehicle fee increases in the future.

Voting YES supports this initiative to:
repeal fuel tax increases and vehicle fees that were enacted in 2017 and
require voter approval (via ballot propositions) for the California State Legislature to impose, increase, or extend fuel taxes or vehicle fees in the future.
Voting NO opposes this initiative, thus keeping the existing taxes and fees as they are.

VOTE NO: California gas is already expensive because the state mandates a certain level of safety and cleanliness and has environmental protections built around it. The gas tax adds about 18 cents per gallon to that. The question to ask is – are you really worried about those 18 cents? Or would you rather have better roads and some effort towards relieving the congestion we currently have on our arterial highways? I vote for the latter.

Proposition 7: the Permanent Daylight Saving Time Measure

Voting YES supports allowing the California State Legislature to establish permanent, year-round daylight saving time (DST) in California by a two-thirds vote if federal law is changed to allow for permanent DST.
Voting NO opposes it.

VOTE YES, YES, YES! This is personal…I hate having jet lag without first going through the experience of being cramped in a tin box for 24 hours.

Proposition 8 would essentially limit the profits of dialysis clinics which, in California, are run by two big corporations that account for 70% of the clinics. Instinctively, this feels fair, especially since many of these clinics operate at huge mark-ups and don’t always offer high quality procedures, but the Mercury News argues that medical insurance being a complex issue, passing such a blanket measure might cause clinics to close down and that would be a disaster for patients. According to the LA Times:

But even if the revenue cap doesn’t drive clinics out of business, it would give them a perverse incentive to deliver care less efficiently — to raise patient-related spending in order to raise the revenue cap. And despite what supporters claim, there’s no guarantee that forcing clinics to spend more would do anything to make care better or more available.

VOTE NO.

Proposition 10: the Local Rent Control Initiative

Voting YES supports allowing local governments to adopt rent control on any type of rental housing, thus repealing the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.
Voting NO opposes the initiative.

VOTE NO: Economists agree that rent controls usually cause a restriction in the supply of housing. The solution to high rents is to build more housing, period. Here is an article in The Economist that explains it; I’ve used this as the basis for my decision.

VOTE YES: It just makes sense. And the reason this is not already a law is because a 2016 Supreme Court decision made the existing law murky.

Proposition 12: the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative

Voting YES supports banning the sale of meat and eggs from calves raised for veal, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens confined in areas below a specific number of square feet.
Voting NO opposes it.

VOTE YES: The current conditions in which meat animals are confined is horribly cruel. Let’s fix this.

Palo Alto Measure F

Measure F is designed to regulate healthcare costs.
Voting YES is a vote in favor of limiting healthcare charges for providers in Palo Alto to 115 percent of the costs of direct patient care by requiring healthcare providers to supply rebates or cost reductions to those who pay for or are financially responsible for patient services when the predetermined cost is exceeded.
Voting NO is a vote against limiting healthcare charges to 115 percent of the costs of direct patient care.

VOTE NO: This is similar to Prop 8 and brought by the same organization – the SEIU – the service employees union. While the intent is laudable, it should not be up to individual cities to mandate this..it makes for a bureaucratic nightmare and competition from neighboring cities.

Hey folks, it’s time for that quadrennial ritual again – the midterm primaries! Hope everybody has got their sample ballots and voters guide and is diligently reading through them and making informed choices.

Ha! ha! Just kidding! Midterm primaries are traditionally the least attended of all elections, and till someone makes it mandatory to vote it is going to remain the same. But important issues tend to be sneakily slid into these primaries and hopefully everyone is a bit more woke this year thanks to our dear leader, who is blazing a trail of corruption and nepotism not seen in recent years. So here is a cheat sheet for all you busy people out there who want to do their civic duty but have no time to do the research.

Here are the 5 propositions that are on the ballot this June and how I plan to vote on them.

Proposition 68, Parks, Environment, and Water Bond

A “yes” vote supports this measure to authorize $4 billion in general obligation bonds for state and local parks, environmental protection projects, water infrastructure projects, and flood protection projects.

A “no” vote opposes this measure.

Recommendation: It makes sense to raise money when your balance sheet looks healthy, and with its 6 billion dollar surplus, CA is in a good position to raise money cheap. There’s no denying that we need the money. There are a lot of proactive measures being taken to protect the Bay and its inhabitants from the effect of climate change. There are also measures to fund new parks in the Central Valley, and it is a good gesture to help populations that have not traditionally voted democratic. I am proud of the legislature for considering this. With our current fiscal status, servicing this debt should not be a problem.

Require that revenue from the diesel sales tax and Transportation Improvement Fee, as enacted by Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), be used for transportation-related purposes; and exempt revenue generated by SB 1’s tax increases and fee schedules from the state appropriations limit.

A “no” vote opposes this amendment.

Recommendation: This refers to a 12-cent gas tax that has already been passed last year by the legislature. By getting voters to support this amendment, lawmakers are ensuring that the money cannot be diverted to any other use but transportation. There is a public initiative in November to repeal the gas tax itself, but while it is still there, it makes sense to lock down its deployment to only transportation related uses.

A “yes” vote supports this legislatively referred constitutional amendment to require a one-time two-thirds vote in each chamber of the state legislature in 2024 or thereafter to pass a spending plan for revenue from the state’s cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases.

A “no” vote opposes this amendment.

Recommendation: Reflexively, anything that ties lawmakers’ ability to use funds for the purpose they were generated makes me uncomfortable. If the cap and trade program generates revenues, why should we make it difficult for those revenues to be spent, even if this is only a one-time restriction? This proposition was a sop to Republican lawmakers by Governor Brown in exchange for their vote on the cap-and-trade program to give him a two-thirds veto proof majority for the initiative.

VOTE NO

Proposition 71, Effective Date of Ballot Measures Amendment

A “yes” vote supports this legislatively referred constitutional amendment to move the effective date of ballot propositions, including citizen initiatives and legislative referrals, from the day after Election Day to the fifth day after the secretary of state certifies election results.

A “no” vote opposes this.

Recommendation: Because a substantial number of Californians vote by mail, allowing a ballot measure to become law the day after the election means that in case of close races, the outcome may well be different by the time the vote by mail ballots are counted. This measure fixes that by waiting for the certified results before enacting a measure that has been decided by voting.

A “yes” vote supports this legislatively referred constitutional amendment to allow the state legislature to exclude rainwater capture systems added after January 1, 2019, from property tax reassessments.

A “no” vote opposes this amendment.

No brainer. VOTE YES.

Statewide Office Holders

Before giving my recommendations, I have to confess a bias; do with it as you will. Other than the most important offices, if I don’t see a particularly big difference among candidates, I will always pick the Democrat woman, if there is an option. We need more women in politics. Call it a sweeping generalization, but in my limited exposure to American politics over the last 10 years, I have come to believe that women are more likely to be amenable to changing their views based on the shifting mood of the electorate. They seem to be less ideologically rigid. And that is what I look for in a politician, someone who is responsive to her constituents. That being said, here are my recommendations.

US Senate:

With California being a comfortably Democratic state, the real battle is between incumbent Senator Dianne Feinstein and Democratic challenger Kevin de Leon. We have a top-two system, which means it is likely that these two will make it to the November elections as well.

There has been a rather sustained campaign to portray DiFi as a centrist candidate out of touch with progressive Californian values. Perhaps. But she has been a reliable Democratic vote in the Senate, has moved leftward on marijuana in response to public pressure, and has been an outspoken member of the Senate Judicial Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee, apposition she holds because of her seniority. As we approach the November elections and a possible change of hands in at least one house of Congress, I would like to a have a senior member with good political connections on these powerful committees. As the Mercury News puts it, “Seniority matters in the Senate.”

And please, no talk about age when we don’t apply the same rules for men.

Recommendation: Dianne Feinstein.

California Governor:

Even though I’ve seen signs for Travis Allen in true blue Palo Alto (gasp!) anyone who is thinking of even considering a Republican for this office at this moment in time needs their heads examined. To my mind, the three contenders to evaluate are Gavin Newsom, John Chiang, and Antonio Villaraigosa. Newsom is the current Lt. Governor and respects the departing Governor Jerry Brown’s legacy of fiscal prudence and social progressivism and would follow in his footsteps. Chiang is the current state treasurer and presumably the executor of Governor Brown’s fiscal policies. Villaraigosa was the mayor of Los Angeles and has executive experience. Here are some interesting parts of their manifestos in a nutshell:

Gavin Newsom:

Supports charter schools and school choice

Supports public financing of elections

Longtime foe of the NRA

Supports SF status as “sanctuary city”

Supports single payer health care in theory

Began his political career more conservative that he is today and has gradually shifted to the left. But probably more conservative and corporate minded fiscally than his progressive supporters would believe.

John Chiang

Affordable housing is his principal plank

No position on charter schools

Cautiously supports the idea of single payer but does not think it is fiscally viable

Foe of the NRA and has implemented divestment of public funds from companies selling weapons

Thin on details

Has made misleading ads about the failures of his opponents that have been rated poorly by Politifact

Has a history of supporting entitlement reform policies endorsed by state GOP

Supports reform of Prop 13

Recommendation: Gavin Newsom. There’s really not a lot to choose from among these three candidates, but I don’t like Villaraigosa’s flirting with entitlement “reform” and am leery of politicians wholeheartedly endorsed by police associations. Chiang is just too much of an unknown. There is another candidate called Delaine Easton who meets much of my lefty progressive wish list but has had no traction in this election and would be unlikely to have the political capital to get anything done.

Lieutenant governor:

Recommendation: Eleni Kounalakis. Why? Because she is a former Ambassador to Hungary under Pres. Obama, she is a Democrat and a woman.

For the rest, I defer to the San Jose Mercury News:

Attorney general – Dave Jones

Insurance commissioner – Steve Poizner

Superintendent of public instruction – Marshall Tuck

State Board of Equalization, District 2 – Malia Cohen

There are several other items and offices on the ballot, but I;d really like to address only one other: The recall of Judge Persky. It is a Santa Clara County measure only so feel free to ignore if you are in another district.

Judge Persky’s recall is an issue where emotions run high. I remember being appalled that Brock Turner, the young man who raped a girl at Stanford was let off relatively easy – he was sentenced just 6 months, served 3 months, and is currently in Ohio planning an appeal to his conviction. Apparently there was a loophole in the law that did not impose mandatory prison sentences if the victims were unconscious or intoxicated and Turner benefited from that. However, he is a registered sex offender now and that will go with him wherever he moves, unless he wins on appeal.

Pro-recall advocates stress the discrepancy in sentencing of a privileged white young man to such a light sentence while minority defendants get the book thrown at them. They are also angry about the fact that the judge chose to disregard the prosecutor’s recommendation and went with the probationary officer’s recommendation when it came to sentencing.

Anti-recall advocates point to the fact that Judge Persky has a pattern of light sentencing. Persky did not break any laws in this case. And his recall will send a message to other judges to get very tough on the perpetrators of such crimes, and the effect is likely to be felt much more by members of socially disadvantaged classes, many of whom will not have the resources to mount the vigorous defense that turner’s family did. But their best argument is “Judges should not have to bend to majority pressure.”

And this last argument, along with the fact that an independent judicial commission exonerated him of bias, is why I am going to vote no.

During the run up to last November’s elections, I was astonished that many conservative women would openly support Donald Trump despite his reputation as a serial adulterer and his openly hostile attitude towards the female sex. Then I saw an interview with one of these supporters who said, very clearly, “He’s an ass but I vote for whoever the Republican Party nominates because of ‘Abortion’.”

I’m sure there were many such women who may not have been as overt about their political affiliations but nevertheless held their noses and voted for Trump because of this single issue. And I get it. If you think abortion is equivalent to killing a child, you cannot, in good conscience, vote against it.

This is the uphill task many Democrats face as they try to win hearts and minds of conservative women within their community. Women vote, and women care, but this single issue has been a wall that we have not been able to breach. The irony is that many Democrats have similar feelings towards abortion. So why are we not able to bridge this divide?

Here I propose a script that we can use to talk to our conservative women friends about abortion. Essentially, they are my feelings towards the subject and if you share some of my thinking, feel free to modify it to suit your own experiences. Let’s reach out across party lines in an effective way so we can get widespread support for causes and organizations that support women’s health and well-being.

(I’ve tried very hard to be respectful to the beliefs of people who oppose abortion but if you feel the language is condescending or patronizing in any way, please point it out and I will fix it.)

My 2 cents:

Abortion is horrible. Anyone who has had one, or even a miscarriage, knows what I am talking about. We women are biologically primed to celebrate and anticipate motherhood, so when a woman decides to have an abortion, it is a gut-wrenching choice. It is also, probably, a last resort.

When there were a couple of times in my life when I was scared by the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy, I had to consider my options. And I recall that my gorge rose at the thought that I might have to have to terminate my pregnancy. I remember thinking, “I can’t do this. I know I have a choice, but I just can’t.” When it became clear that I was not pregnant, I almost collapsed in relief. I’ve talked to some close friends about this and they have shared that they felt the same way when this happened to them.

Now my daughter is in high school. She is the smartest and most responsible person I know, but I have to be realistic about the fact that a teen pregnancy is, biologically speaking, possible. I’ve gone through the scenarios in my head. And I know, choice or not, if she happens to get pregnant, I’m going to encourage her to keep the baby.

So, feeling the way I do, why do I still support a woman’s right to choose?

It’s precisely because I know that abortion is horrible and a last resort that I believe that decisions about pregnancies should be left to women. We don’t take this decision lightly. If we are looking for an abortion, there is a good reason for it. Even if the reason appears casual on the surface, like a teen getting knocked up and then shrugging her shoulders about it, it is probably because she was never educated about taking precautions, never given the “talk”, or doesn’t have a frank and open relationship with her parents that she can talk about these matters openly.

And the data available to us on this subject is pretty clear that when teen girls are given sex education, counseling, and access to contraceptives, unwanted pregnancies go way down. Here is a chart about abortion rates over time. You can see clearly that having the right to choose as granted by Roe v. Wade has not made abortions more popular.

There has been a move among conservative states to shut down clinics that provide such services. And there has been an all-out effort to close Planned Parenthood branches and gut federal funding for the organization.

At first glance, it appears that such efforts bring down abortions in states that enact strict anti-abortion laws. But data also shows that the abortions just migrate to the nearest state that offers the services. For instance,

An influx of women from out of state also was cited as a reason for Louisiana’s increase. Ben Clapper, executive director of Louisiana Right to Life, said abortions for nonresidents jumped by more than 1,200 between 2010 and 2012, and suggested new restrictions in Mississippi and Texas were a factor.

From the same article,

The biggest decrease in abortion, percentage-wise, was in Hawaii, where abortions fell from 3,064 in 2010 to 2,147 in 2014. Laurie Temple Field, government relations director for Planned Parenthood in Hawaii, said more women were getting access to health insurance and affordable contraception. She also credited the state’s policies on sex education in public schools, which includes information to help teens avoid unplanned pregnancies.

Five of the six states with the biggest declines — Hawaii at 30 percent, New Mexico at 24 percent, Nevada and Rhode Island at 22 percent, Connecticut at 21 percent — have passed no recent laws to restrict access.

So the data suggests that abortion is a matter of desperation, and that women looking to terminate will travel miles to find a provider and, if that is not possible, will resort to back-room procedures incredibly dangerous to their health.

Here’s my question to you. Isn’t it far better to not have unwanted pregnancies at all instead of having to make the difficult choice of keeping the baby or not? I am pro-choice, but in a perfect world, I would also like to see no abortions at all. I just happen to believe that the way to do this is to have more counselling services, more education, and easier access for contraception for women. And if after all these services have been provided there is still the rare pregnancy that is unwanted, yes, I believe in a woman’s right to make choices about her body, because bringing an unwanted and unloved child into this world is pretty cruel to the child and the mother. And in cases of rape or incest, I’m sure you can understand why the pregnancy may be emotionally devastating.

So let’s work together to reduce the need for abortions. Organizations like Planned Parenthood whose principal work is in counseling and health services with a very small part of their funding going towards abortions need your support too. What you are supporting is free or cheap health care, contraception, and services that help teens and young women make better choices. When it comes down to it, all of us women, no matter our party affiliation, want the same thing for our society and our children. We have much more in common than you think.

The best thing that could have happened to Karan Johar’s latest movie, Ae Dil Hai Mushkil was the controversy surrounding Fawad Khan, the Pakistani actor who makes a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it appearance in this bloated 2 hour 35 minute-long weep fest. Even among Johar loyalists like me who were enthralled by the escapist glossiness of Riverdale romance Kuch Kuch Hota Hai and manipulative melodrama Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham, the bloom was wearing off, thanks to clunkers like My Name is Khan and Student of the Year. Without the hype surrounding the movie and a trailer featuring the glorious title song, I wonder how many of us would have dragged ourselves to this throwback of a movie, featuring foreign locations and playback singing, features that have become passé even in formula-driven Bollywood.

Johar sets this tale of unrequited love in his usual upper crust milieu, where transportation is by private jet and the credit cards are bottomless, but it has always been his forte to focus on the emotional anxieties of the rich and famous. If that lends his movies a sheen of inauthenticity, that is usually overcome by the clever lines, the crisp editing, and the attractiveness and chemistry of his lead actors.

In ADHM, though, his charm runs out, and what we are left with is a pastiche of countless movies of the 90s and 00s, including Johar’s own, which have fermented in his gut a tad too long before being regurgitated into a stinky mess that reeks of desperation. Every line of dialogue is either from another movie, or sounds like it should be. Plenty of old classic songs are replayed constantly, as are tunes from old KJ movies. Even the scenes are repurposed. A scene of the actors cavorting in a Swiss-like mountain meadow is obviously a Yash Chopra homage, but feels dreadfully like the director has run out of ideas, especially since the actors begin the scene in Paris.

Even the actors inhabit multiple personalities from their previous movies. Ranbir Kapoor, who is surely a better actor than on display here, senses the fakery of the premise and decides to recycle responsibly. He is Ved from Tamasha for the first half hour or so, before seguing into Barfi and then Janardhan/Jordan from Rockstar. Anushka Sharma looks like Zaara from Veer Zaara and acts like Taani from Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi. Since the two are not even supposed to be in love with each other, even the Shahrukh/Kajol kind of chemistry cannot be relied on to prop up the movie, though the Khan gamely makes a Botoxed-cameo to help out his friend,

Aishwarya Rai, Ranbir’s other love interest, seems to be in this movie to triumphantly prove to her detractors that she is back in shape and drop-dead gorgeous again, so take that, you haters. Every scene is an audition for a future perfume commercial or a jewelry line, with popping lip color and artfully waved hair framing those luscious features. It’s possible she has a no-kissing clause in her movie contracts because her love-making scenes with Ranbir are positively anemic, which are such a disservice to the story, given that their relationship is supposed to be one of sensuous physicality.

The one redeeming factor of KJ’s movies has always been the pleasant sense of satiation one gets from consuming buttered popcorn but, sad to say, it’s time to admit that the butter has gone rancid and the popcorn is soggy. Mainstream Bollywood has been coming out with very interesting movies lately, like Pink, and Badlapur, and Kahaani, where the emphasis is rightly on strong narratives, indigenous themes, and meaty roles. The era of Karan Johar’s fantasies may have finally passed, it seems. I think I’ll miss it, but I’m glad it’s done.

A (male) friend asked me on Facebook why I found the following video creepy.I didn’t want to brush off his sincere question with a glib or facile answer, so I decided to write this post to clarify my thoughts not just for him but for me too.

Let me start by acknowledging that I am nearing the half-century mark of life. I have grey hair, cellulite, an extra 10 pounds and, if I could, I would live my life in sweatpants and tees. (Basically, I’ve given up!). If you were to meet me on the street, you may not even notice me; I look so harmless, sexless, and inconsequential, the antithesis of a sexual predator’s target.

But, even now, if I am walking alone in the daytime or night, and I encounter a man either walking towards me or behind me, my fingers curl into fists. I become hyper-aware, listening for footsteps that may be speeding up, or looking for signs that the hands approaching me could be raised in a way that is threatening to me. I scan the environment for safe spaces I can run to, or an ally across the street. I don’t even realize that I am holding my breath for the entire duration of the encounter, and I will usually let it out with a whoosh when the moment has passed. And the funny thing is that the guy doesn’t even have to be bigger than me or obviously menacing in any way.

I’ve been doing this forever.

The first time I was groped (as far as I can remember) was when I was fifteen. I was returning home from school via a shortcut through some fields (I lived in a suburb of Mumbai in India). The guy ran up from behind me, grabbed my breasts, and ran ahead. It happened in the space of 5 seconds or less. I was shell-shocked, though I kept plodding toward home. I never told my parents, not even when it happened again a few months later. Why? Maybe I was ashamed. Most victims of sexual assault feel that way, however unfair and stupid it may seem. Perhaps it is ingrained in the culture somehow that the woman must have brought it on herself.

It took a couple of more incidents before the shame gave way to rage, and I started preparing for the next one with the hyper-awareness that I mentioned before. The next time it happened, it was a guy on a bicycle. I was with a friend, who remembers the incident better than I do. When the guy on the bike put his hand on me I hit his back with all the force I could muster, cursing him loudly. I vowed I would never, ever again, be a victim.

I sincerely hope not every woman has had an experience like mine, but I know for a fact that many have had worse, and nearly every woman has experienced some kind of physical dominance from a man at some point in her life. The easiest, most primitive way to exhibit dominance is to get really, really close. Maybe it is my heightened sensitivity to such experiences, but I get very nervous, even though I know that in most cases I can defend myself just fine. It’s just that I don’t want to be in that position. I would rather avoid conflict, because even though I may physically win that particular encounter, there is really no win for me in the long run. An extreme example of what I mean is in the new Hindi movie Pink, where defending herself gets a girl into all sorts of trouble, both physical and legal.

More importantly, when a man gets very close, looms, invades your space, as Trump does in that video, he is sending the subliminal message “I am the boss of you. I have power over you. I can do you harm.” And women, even the most emancipated, fearless, and empowered of our ilk, know that in a very basic, biological sense, that message is true.

When I experienced that gut reaction to Trump’s behavior last night, I went on social media to see if my feelings were unusual or if other women were creeped out too. Turns out it was not just women who noticed. Nigel Farage, the architect of the misguided Brexit campaign in Britain, now an advisor on Trump’s campaign, said this:

“He looked like a big gorilla prowling the set. He is that big alpha male — that’s who he is, that’s who he is,” Farage said. “We all have comparisons to animals or whatever it may be, but that’s how he seems to me. The leader of the pack, that’s what he’s like.”

Even an idiot like Farage could read the body language on display last night.

Jane Goodall, the primate expert, told The Atlantic magazine, “In many ways the performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and their dominance rituals…”

That’s what happened last night. Trump may have also openly called Clinton a liar, threatened to imprison her and, in general, projected a ton of bile and hatred on to her verbally, but the volume really didn’t need to be on to understand what he was saying. You just had to look at him over the course of the 90-minute debate. His message was loud and clear.

Recently an ESL student of mine became a spanking new U.S. citizen. I’ve been teaching her English for about a year and a half, but the last six months were spent cramming for the citizenship exam, which has not only reading and writing tests but also big chunks of American history. To better help her remember the material she was memorizing, I often used Google Translate to explain complex concepts that the Founding Fathers had immortalized in the U.S. Constitution over 200 years ago. The very first paragraph is quite a mouthful –

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The entire paragraph is actually just one sentence, but it contains within that single sentence such a multitude of ideas that it took us a while to unpack them all and truly understand the purpose of the drafters. As we proceeded through the reading of American history, I felt such a sense of pride for this country I now call home.

Eight years ago, I had taken the same citizenship test, and I recall how my voice wobbled when I pledged allegiance to this country over my motherland India, where I had spent the first four decades of my life. What had kept me going through the solemn ceremony was the certainty that the values of this country I had now adopted were aligned with my personal belief system. Casting my first presidential vote for Barack Obama, who embodied those values and referred to them often, only made my pride in this country deepen.

Fast-forward to 2016 and I am looking on in horror as a minimum of 40% of the American populace seems to be in thrall to a racist, egomaniacal demagogue who has shattered all norms of civility, political correctness, and even lawful behavior, yet continues to have stable support among a plurality of Americans. Donald Trump once famously said, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” His continued viability as a Presidential candidate seems to bear that out.

So what does this say about us as a country? About our claim of moral leadership? About our standing as the leader of the free world?

When I became a U.S. citizen I believed that America stood for certain values, and that core ethic justified its preeminence in its world. Yes, we made and continue to make mistakes in our self-governance and in our dealings with the world, but I’ve always hoped that we have a certain moral core that we return to to self-correct, to acknowledge our mistakes, to make reparations. What bolsters this belief is that I live in a society whose values lean increasingly towards acceptance of diversity, towards tolerance, towards punishing wrongdoers and rewarding virtue. Sometimes this belief gets shaken, as when I hear of black Americans unfairly targeted by police, or bank executives getting away scot-free after legally looting their stakeholders. But there has always been a sense that if we can mobilize, protest, and take action, these mistakes can be fixed.

But when a throwback like Donald Trump comes this close to power, I really have to question my fellow Americans and their loyalties. Have we really forgotten what we are and are meant to be as Americans? Do we need a reminder of what our values are? Well then, here’s a list, in no particular order –

We believe in a voice for everybody, regardless of their economic, social, or racial status.

We accept and welcome diversity

We believe in abiding by the law and none of is exempt from doing so

We pay our fair share of taxes and insurance to live in a stable, prosperous society

We care for our fellow citizens and our global brothers and sisters

We care for the environment and the ecology we are leaving to our children

We engage in respectful dialogue

We believe in equal opportunity

We are saddened by others’ suffering and seek to help where we can

And most important of all, America is a nation of “We” and not a country filled with “I’s,” each looking out for himself. This is enshrined in our constitution, whose first three words should give us a hint to the culture the framers were creating for the new country.

Donald Trump, you, your campaign, and your supporters need to take a closer look at what it means to be a patriotic American. Take a minute for self-examination and think about whether the values I listed above are actually better held by immigrants like myself and my student, who honor them by our actions every single day or by rage-filled xenophobes like you who seem to have strayed far, far away from the ideals of this country.

Maybe each one of you should take the citizenship test too…it might teach you a few things you seem to have forgotten as you celebrate hate, denigrate the “other” and make a virtue of gaming the system. Then you might understand what it truly means to be an American.

I’ve been an American citizen and diligent voter since 2008. Mulling over the propositions on the ballot in every election is a task I usually look forward to, but this year both the number of initiatives on the ballot and the sneaky provisions in many of them left me tired and not a little confused at the end of the process.

Here are my recommendations and if some leave you scratching your head, take a moment to check out my reasoning further down.

Proposition 51 – California Public School Facility Bonds Initiative: Voting Yes gives the state the authority to issue $9 billion in bonds that would mainly fund school infrastructure. The cost per annum to the state is estimated to be $500 million.
While there is no denying that California schools have infrastructure needs, a big problem with this bond is that it does not allocate funds on a need basis but on a first-come, first-served basis. This means that savvier school districts could easily divert bond money towards their own use instead of the money going to needy districts. The push for this proposition has come from realtors and while it has the support of both school boards and California PTA, it is opposed by Governor Jerry Brown, who thinks it is a give-away to developers, who had a big hand in writing this proposition.VOTE NO.

Proposition 52 – Voter Approval to Divert Hospital Fee Revenue Dedicated to Medi-Cal: In 2009, a new program was created such that California hospitals were required to pay a fee to help the state obtain matching federal Medicaid funds. This program has resulted in California hospitals receiving roughly $2 billion a year in additional federal money to Medi-Cal. However, the state government has diverted some of the funds from the hospital fee program to the general fund. This proposition makes it much more difficult to divert Medical funds to general funds and also extends the hospital fee indefinitely so the state can continue receiving matching funds from the federal government. It has the support of every major newspaper editorial. Though I am generally not in favor of pushing more decisions to the voters, this proposition keeps funds where they belong.VOTE YES.

Proposition 53 – Voter Approval Requirement for Revenue Bonds above $2 Billion Initiative: This proposition requires statewide voter approval before any revenue bonds can be issued by the state if the bond amount exceeds $2 billion.
This proposition is a perfect example of pushing a decision best taken by a democratically elected legislature onto the voters. As it is we have way too many propositions on the ballot every Presidential year. Do we really want to get into the nitty-gritties of each and every big spending proposal that the government wishes to make? Voting yes on this proposition will seriously hamper the ability of the government to do its job. In fact, some language in this bill requires even local projects to be approved by a state-wide vote. Ridiculous!VOTE NO.

Proposition 54 – Public Display of Legislative Bills Prior to Vote: Requires that every bill is published in print and online at least 72 hours before each house of the legislature can vote on it. Also allows any individual to record open legislative sessions.
Even though this proposition is funded by a single billionaire Republican, it seems to bring more transparency to government, always a better direction for democracy. It also prevents a tactic known as “Gut and Amend” which allows legislators to remove complete sections of a bill that has been approved and replace it with completely different language at the last minute.VOTE YES.

Proposition 55 – Extension of the Proposition 30 Income Tax Increase Initiative: Proposition 55 would continue the tax rates instituted by Proposition 30 through 2030, instead of Prop 30 expiring in 2018. The tax increase impacts the 1.5 percent of Californians with a single income filing of at least $263,000 or a joint income filing of at least $526,000.
What can I say – I am a tax and spend liberal! And the deciding factor for me is that 89% of the funds go to K-12 schools and 1% to community colleges. And if you are making half a million dollars a year on a joint income, you can afford to give an extra 1-3%!VOTE YES.

Proposition 56 – Tobacco Tax Increase: This proposition increases taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products by the equivalent of $2 per pack. It does not address the allocation of that money, which presumably will be the same as before, going to anti-smoking initiatives etc.
I don’t smoke and I believe smoking is bad, so I would have been in favor anyway, but the kicker is that this proposition puts a tax on e-cigarettes as well, and considering how vaping is getting more and more popular among new and young smokers, I am happy to support anything that discourages that practice.VOTE YES.

Proposition 57 – Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements Initiative: A “yes” vote supports increasing parole and good behavior opportunities for felons convicted of nonviolent crimes and allowing judges, not prosecutors, to decide whether to try certain juveniles as adults in court. About 25,000 nonviolent state felons that could seek early release and parole under Proposition 57. Also, instead of prosecutors, judges would decide whether to try juveniles as young as 14 years old in adult court.
Given our knowledge about the development of the adolescent brain, I am completely in favor of leeway in sentencing guidelines for juveniles. Also, it makes sense to try other methods of rehabilitation for non-violent offenders than throw them in our already over-crowded prisons. However, the Mercury News opposes the proposition for being poorly written. My guess is that the proposition is deliberately worded loosely to give law-enforcement some discretion in who to release.VOTE YES.

Proposition 58 – Non-English Languages Allowed in Public Education Act: 20 years ago, Prop 227 mandated that English learners be taught in English-only immersion classes. Supposedly this was because bilingual education was not preparing immigrants, especially Hispanics, for the workforce as they were able to get by in their native language in school.
Fast forward to today and educational methods and practices have changed to using bilingual methods to impart instruction, even language. Proposition 58, therefore, wants to repeal Prop 227 to allow teachers and educators more flexibility in imparting instruction.
On the face of it, this makes sense to me and the proposition has the support of teachers state-wide.VOTE YES.

Proposition 59 – Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory Question: As far as I can tell, this proposition doesn’t actually do anything but ask California’s elected officials to use their authority to propose and ratify an amendment to the Constitution overturning Citizens United. Despite being a rather toothless measure, voting yes signals your support for overturning Citizens United, the law that prevents any checks on corporate money in American politics.VOTE YES.

Proposition 60 – Condoms in Pornographic Films Initiative: A “yes” vote would be a vote in favor of requiring the use of condoms and other protective measures during the filming of pornographic films, as well as requiring pornography producers to pay for certain health requirements and checkups.
At first this seems like a no-brainer, till you discover that not only do most major newspapers oppose it, it is a rare bill that is opposed by both the California Democratic AND California Republican parties! This is because this proposition opens the door to millions of frivolous lawsuits. A statement for the opposition says “Under Prop 60, California will become the first state in the nation to allow and incentivize ANY RESIDENT to sue a worker for how they do their job, creating the potential for a lawsuit bonanza that will fill up the courts and sidestep a government agency, costing California millions.” Check this link for more on the opposition. http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/8/17/suing-porn-stars-will-not-lead-less-hiv
The Proposition is also opposed by the only association of adult movie workers, the people who have the most to gain from such a health initiative, if it were legit.VOTE NO.

Proposition 61 – Drug Price Standards Initiative: A “yes” vote would mean that state agencies would pay the same amount for prescription drugs as the VA. It does not regulate the price paid by individuals.
Again, at first glance this seems to be a clear choice. We all hate Big Pharma, especially in the light of the recent Epi-Pen price hikes. And this proposition is fervently opposed by pharma companies. However, the problem seems to be in implementation. By linking Medical drug prices with VA prices, the state runs the risk of having pharma companies raise prices on VA drugs to meet the letter of the law. Or some drugs would become unavailable. Or pharma companies could raise the prices on the drugs that are not supplied to the VA. The cartel nature of the pharmaceutical industry in this country leaves a bad taste in the mouth but a law that cannot be implemented and only hampers the negotiating ability of the state cannot be a good one.VOTE NO.

Proposition 62 – Repeal of the Death Penalty Initiative: A “yes” vote supports repealing the death penalty and making life without the possibility of parole the maximum punishment for murder.
This one is a personal choice but I don’t believe in the philosophy of “a life for a life.”VOTE YES.

Proposition 63 – Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban Initiative: A “yes” vote supports prohibiting the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines and requiring certain individuals to pass a background check in order to purchase ammunition.
The opposition to this common-sense bill is the usual “civil liberties violation” one, but most sane people approve of background checks and don’t feel the need to own large-capacity guns or ammo for personal safety.VOTE YES.

Proposition 64 – California Marijuana Legalization Initiative: Legalizes recreational marijuana and hemp under state law and establishes certain sales and cultivation taxes.
Marijuana would now be legal (for adults), taxed, and licensed. Funds would be used to study marijuana, develop protocols for safe use, and disbursed to health centers and non-profits working in this space.
To decide how to vote on this proposition, it’s worth looking at the effects of legalizing marijuana in Colorado. The state’s top health official, Dr. Larry Wolk, says, “… since legalization no … troubling public health trends have cropped up yet.” Legalization has brought millions into state coffers. The police, who were worried about the increase in drug-related offences have mainly struggled with DUI issues.
Lawmakers in Colorado who held their breath after the law was passed in 2014 concede that the new law has not had any real negative impact in the state.
As for the DUI problem, Stanford students are already working on a “pot-alyzer!” The more this compound is legal and out in the open, the better we can study it, understand it and of course, use it!VOTE YES.

Proposition 65 – Dedication of Revenue from Disposable Bag Sales to Wildlife Conservation: This is the first of 2 initiatives related to the ban of plastic grocery bags. A “yes” vote is a vote in favor of redirecting money collected from the sale of carry-out bags by grocery or other retail stores to a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board. Currently these funds go to the store themselves.
This is one sneaky bill, sponsored by a few out-of-state plastic bag companies. There are two very suspicious aspects to the bill. First is Section 6(a) of the bill, which says that if this measure win more votes than Proposition 67, which seeks to uphold the plastic bag ban law SB 270, then all the provisions of Prop 67 would become void, which could be interpreted as rescinding the bag ban by the courts. Potentially, the law SB 270 banning plastic bags could be reversed if Prop 65 wins.
Secondly, this measure would make grocery stores oppose banning plastic bags, if it meant a loss of the revenue from the sale of plastic bag alternatives. It would also make a 10-cent fine into a government tax, which people instinctively dislike. Also, it would not, in any way, reduce the actual use of plastic bags.VOTE NO.

Proposition 66 – Death Penalty Procedures Initiative: In the guise of changing procedures relating to death penalty convictions, what this proposition essentially does is nullify the repeal of the death penalty under Prop 62 if it gets more votes.VOTE NO.

Proposition 67 – Plastic Bag Ban Veto Referendum: A “yes” vote is a vote in favor of upholding or ratifying the contested legislation banning plastic bags that was enacted by the California State Legislature under the name Senate Bill 270.
This proposition essentially ratifies SB 270 that bans the use of plastic bags statewide. But the reason this proposition, also brought by plastic bag manufacturers, is on the ballot is to confuse voters into picking Prop 65 over Prop 67, because of the end use of the carry-out bag revenues. Then the provisions of Prop 65 would be used to overturn SB 270. Don’t get fooled. Vote Yes on 67 and No on 65.VOTE YES.